They are not trying to protect you or anybody. The idea IMO in those dire warning are:
1) make a lot of noise and dire warning
2) get congress to pass the "responsible AI act (TM)" which will only allow "responsible model"
3) Only the local US grown model are declared "responsible model"
4) China and other country are naturally excluded
5) ask politician to put sanction on those who use "irresponsible model"
6) profit.

Let's be more specific about how and why this could happen? What scenarios could lead to the total destruction of mankind?

"A labor union wants to be, and often is, the exclusive provider (that is, seller) of labor to a company or industry. "

Labor Union do not provide exclusively labor to companies. What they do is have the power of collective bargaining, job protection, safety - which is utterly different to being "exclusive provider of job".
You may confusing normal labor union, with hiring hall union (e.g. in construction/actors/voice actor). That is a widely different type of union. Most union are NOT hiring hall union.

Feel free to correct me.

"The UK may not regulate US entities without the consent of the US government"

The UK can wholly regulate US entity doing commerce in the UK on what they can or cannot do while selling to UK citizen, and their modality of information being saved UK data information for later access in UK.

And the US government can do diddly squat on that except trying political pressure (thus the article), and the company can go out of the UK market if they don't like the modality of it. Which in this case they did not, they agreed to remove some encryption instead, while probably going to thug the dick of the politician they donate to, and whine ask them to do something.

It is kind of shit, mainly because it's increasingly out of touch. If they wanted to make a culturally relevant game, it should be Grand Theft America, where the goal is to rename everything America, alienate all of your friends, and start fights you can't win.

Your point would be valid if we were speaking about navigation only. The reality is that the Mercator map is used everywhere, for politics, news, and education. And that is where the point of the new projection comes in.

It isn't about what China would find on the moon, but rather that the whole process would mean they are doing fundamental research and this would lead to advancement for them. Since the US is mostly doing "rent seeking" and much less advancement like that, this would lead to the US falling back in the tech compared to China. At least that's the theory, and why some on the US side are frightened by a tech China on the moon.

Problem1 : You would need conduction (from each cpu/gpu in the server toward a radiator using cooling liquid for example) from the rack to a radiator.
Otherwise if you don't those 100kW would be dumped into very small surface of the GPU/CPU and small radiator they usually have.
At 300K blackbody radiance is ~450 W.m^-2 So you r calculation of the surface of the cylinder is OK, you would only need 222 m^2 to dissipate a blackbody at 300K of 100kW of heat. The problem is that the heat is not dumped into the cylinder directly, but would need to be conducted from the cpu/gpu radiator to the cylinder . And that's where the problem starts, as you would need almost certainly a liquid for the transport, and that brings a lot of issue itself (weight, pump failure, freezing/boiling etc...). And that's not even counting servicing & obsolescence.

IMO the feasability of this is near null zero enough to be disregarded as a tech bro stupid solution in wait of a problem.

much MUCH easier solution is to have the server on earth, in zone where you have a lot of renewable like solar, wind. easier to maintain , cool, and give energy.

Great Scott! We just need 0.21 gigawatts more!

Class of '26, in before proctors!

Bold of you , to imagine that by that point in a few decades, that lake still exists.

The issue is too many people don't look at political party plans, they simply adopt a political party as their identity. They are not republican (or democrats!) because GOP propose plan with item 1,2,3, but rather because being republican is part of their identity. Once that happens and facts goes against that political party, it make the brain analyze it as an attack against identity, and use defensive reaction mechanism to protect identity, chief among them wholesale rejection of facts.

This is not only the republican which do that, but republican happens to be associated with right wing / authority / strength as an image (not necessarily a truth just an image) and far more likely currently to have the facts going against them.

They (conspiracy theorist from r/UFOs) take

1) a long period of time (the first "case" is from july 2023)
2) they take various profession and places mashed together
3) various situation mashed together (missing, suicided, murdered, one guy missing stating he did not want to live with his brain deteriorating etc...)
Then suddenly they find out there is a dozen such a case.


The thing is I would be not be surprised if you take so many different places, and people, over so many years, and check for disappearance/murder/suicide you would find similar number, but nobody will make a CT over your random white collar guy.

People act like life expectancies have been getting shorter.

They romanticize historic and prehistoric diets alike, as if they were utopian; as if people somehow intuited what to eat, or else that the constraints of supply somehow shaped digestive evolution like an intelligently designed metabolic symphony of symbiosis. That ignores the plain reality of volatile supplies -- even after the advent of agriculture, but especially before it -- and the reality that evolution is not driven by perfect health or life expectancy; only by surviving long enough to reproduce.

Even if modern diets are "unhealthy" (whatever that means), that doesn't imply that people were eating healthier at any point in the past. In fact, skeletal records clearly show that human existence has been rife with scurvy, rickets, iron deficiency, and stunted growth. Nutritional deficiencies were the norm, not the exception. Now (many people) have abundance, and that presents its own challenges, but the notion of an ideal, historic nutritional baseline is pure fiction. It's turtles all the way down.

LLMs have never been rules-based "agents," and they never will be. They cannot internalize arbitrary guidelines and abide by them unerringly, nor can they make qualitative decisions about which rule(s) to follow in the face of conflict. The nature of attention windows means that models are actively ignoring context, including "rules", which is why they can't follow them, and conflict resolution requires intelligence, which they do not possess, and which even intelligent beings frequently fail to do effectively. Social "error correction" tools for rule-breaking include learning from mistakes, which agents cannot do, and individualized ostracization/segregation (firing, jail, etc.), which is also not something we can do with LLMs.

So the only way to achieve rule-following behavior is to deterministically enforce limits on what LLMs can do, akin to a firewall. This is not exactly straightforward either, especially if you don't have fine-grained enough controls in the first place. For example, you could deterministically remove the capability of an agent to delete emails, but you couldn't easily scope that restriction to only "work emails," for example. They would need to be categorized appropriately, external to the agent, and the agent's control surface would need to thoroughly limit the ability to delete any email tagged as "work", or to change or remove the "work" tag, and ensure that the "work" tag deny rule takes priority over any other "allow" rules, AND prevent the agent from changing the rules by any means.

Essentially, this is an entirely new threat model, where neither agentic privilege nor agentic trust cleanly map to user privilege or user trust. At the same time, the more time spent fine-tuning rules and controls, the less useful agentic automation becomes. At some point you're doing at least as much work as the agent, if not more, and the whole point of "individualized" agentic behavior inherently means that any given set of fine-tuned rules are not broadly applicable. On top of that, the end result of agentic behavior might even be worse than the outcome of human performance to boot, which means more work for worse results.